ETHICAL REASONING VALUE RUBRIC

for more information, please contact value@aacu.org

The VALUE rubrics were developed by teams of faculty experts representing colleges and universities across the United States through a process that examined many existing campus rubrics
and related documents for each learning outcome and incorporated additional feedback from faculty. The rubrics articulate fundamental criteria for each learning outcome, with performance descriptors
demonstrating progressively more sophisticated levels of attainment. The rubrics are intended for institutional-level use in evaluating and discussing student learning, not for grading. The core
expectations articulated in all 15 of the VALUE rubrics can and should be translated into the language of individual campuses, disciplines, and even courses. The utility of the VALUE rubrics is to
position learning at all undergraduate levels within a basic framework of expectations such that evidence of learning can by shared nationally through a common dialog and understanding of student
success.

Definition
E thical Reasoning is reasoning about right and wrong human conduct. It requires students to be able to assess their own ethical values and the social context of problems, recognize ethical
issues in a variety of settings, think about how different ethical perspectives might be applied to ethical dilemmas and consider the ramifications of alternative actions. Students’ ethical self identity
evolves as they practice ethical decision-making skills and learn how to describe and analyze positions on ethical issues.

Framing Language
This rubric is intended to help faculty evaluate work samples and collections of work that demonstrate student learning about ethics. Although the goal of a liberal education should be to help
students turn what they’ve learned in the classroom into action, pragmatically it would be difficult, if not impossible, to judge whether or not students would act ethically when faced with real ethical
situations. What can be evaluated using a rubric is whether students have the intellectual tools to make ethical choices.
The rubric focuses on five elements: E thical Self Awareness, Ethical Issue Recognition, Understanding Different Ethical Perspectives/ Concepts, Application of Ethical Principles, and
E valuation of Different Ethical Perspectives/Concepts. Students’ Ethical Self Identity evolves as they practice ethical decision-making skills and learn how to describe and analyze positions on ethical
issues. Presumably, they will choose ethical actions when faced with ethical issues.

Glossary
The definitions that follow were developed to clarify terms and concepts used in this rubric only.
• Core Beliefs: Those fundamental principles that consciously or unconsciously influence one's ethical conduct and ethical thinking. Even when unacknowledged, core beliefs shape one's
responses. Core beliefs can reflect one's environment, religion, culture or training. A person may or may not choose to act on their core beliefs.
• E thical Perspectives/ concepts: The different theoretical means through which ethical issues are analyzed, such as ethical theories (e.g., utilitarian, natural law, virtue) or ethical concepts (e.g.,
rights, justice, duty).
• Complex, multi-layered (gray) context: The sub-parts or situational conditions of a scenario that bring two or more ethical dilemmas (issues) into the mix/ problem/ context/ for student's
identification.
• Cross-relationships among the issues: Obvious or subtle connections between/among the sub-parts or situational conditions of the issues present in a scenario (e.g., relationship of production
of corn as part of climate change issue).
 ETHICAL REASONING VALUE RUBRIC
for more information, please contact value@aacu.org

Definition
Ethical Reasoning is reasoning about right and wrong human conduct. It requires students to be able to assess their own ethical values and the social context of problems, recognize ethical issues in a variety of settings, think about
how different ethical perspectives might be applied to ethical dilemmas, and consider the ramifications of alternative actions. Students’ ethical self-identity evolves as they practice ethical decision-making skills and learn how to describe and
analyze positions on ethical issues.

Evaluators are encouraged to assign a zero to any work sample or collection of work that does not meet benchmark (cell one) level performance.

Capstone Milestones Benchmark

4 3 2 1

Ethical Self-Awareness Student discusses in detail/ analyzes both core Student discusses in detail/ analyzes both core Student states both core beliefs and the origins Student states either their core beliefs or
beliefs and the origins of the core beliefs and beliefs and the origins of the core beliefs.
discussion has greater depth and clarity.
Understanding Different Ethical Student names the theory or theories, can
Perspectives/Concepts present the gist of said theory or theories, and
accurately explains the details of the theory or
theories used.
Ethical Issue Recognition Student can recognize ethical issues when
presented in a complex, multilayered (gray)
context AND can recognize cross-
relationships among the issues.
Application of Ethical Student can independently apply ethical
Perspectives/Concepts perspectives/ concepts to an ethical question,
accurately, and is able to consider full
implications of the application.
Evaluation of Different Ethical Student states a position and can state the
Perspectives/Concepts objections to, assumptions and implications of
and can reasonably defend against the
objections to, assumptions and implications of
different ethical perspectives/ concepts, and
the student's defense is adequate and effective.
of the core beliefs. articulates the origins of the core beliefs but
not both.
Student can name the major theory or theories Student can name the major theory she/ he Student only names the major theory she/ he
she/ he uses, can present the gist of said uses, and is only able to present the gist of the uses.
theory or theories, and attempts to explain the named theory.
details of the theory or theories used, but has
some inaccuracies.
Student can recognize ethical issues when Student can recognize basic and obvious Student can recognize basic and obvious
issues are presented in a complex, multilayered ethical issues and grasp (incompletely) the ethical issues but fails to grasp complexity or
(gray) context OR can grasp cross- complexities or interrelationships among the interrelationships.
relationships among the issues. issues.
Student can independently (to a new example) Student can apply ethical Student can apply ethical
apply ethical perspectives/ concepts to an perspectives/ concepts to an ethical question, perspectives/ concepts to an ethical question
ethical question, accurately, but does not independently (to a new example) and the with support (using examples, in a class, in a
consider the specific implications of the application is inaccurate. group, or a fixed-choice setting) but is unable
application. to apply ethical perspectives/ concepts
independently (to a new example.).
Student states a position and can state the Student states a position and can state the Student states a position but cannot state the
objections to, assumptions and implications objections to, assumptions and implications of objections to and assumptions and limitations
of, and respond to the objections to, different ethical perspectives/ concepts but of the different perspectives/ concepts.
assumptions and implications of different does not respond to them (and ultimately
ethical perspectives/ concepts, but the objections, assumptions, and implications are
student's response is inadequate. compartmentalized by student and do not
affect student's position.)